The Hudood Ordinance has not been effective in controlling crimes falling under its ambit, concluded a report by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII). The number of registered cases shows that the number of Hudood-related crimes has not decreased, the report added. According to the CII report, 361,035 cases were registered during the last five years under the Hudood Ordinance. As many as 75, 943 cases were registered in 2001 and 82,545 in 2002. Similarly 67,063 cases were registered in 2003 and 77,420 in 2004. However, the number of cases registered under the Hudood Ordinance by the end of August 2005 was 58,064, the report said. In 2001, people were convicted in 47,518 cases while 13,266 were acquitted. In 2002, 46,874 were convicted and 12,753 acquitted. Similarly, 44,146 people were convicted and 16,748 were acquitted in 2003. At least 36,511 were convicted and 13,212 acquitted in 2004. However, 18,776 people were convicted and 5,904 acquitted in 2005 by August.
On the other hand, the number of cases registered under Zina Ordinance has also increased during the last five years and the rate of conviction in Zina cases remained low compared to acquittal rates, the report said. In 2001, at least 356 people were convicted while 1,123 acquitted. In 2002, as many as 388 people were convicted and 1,320 acquitted. Similarly, 316 people were convicted while 1,318 acquitted in 2003 and 345 were convicted and 1093 acquitted in 2004. At least 127 people were convicted and 533 acquitted in 2005 up to August, the report said. The report further said 1,501 Zina cases had been registered so far which were pending in different courts.
The report said that the ordinance had remained controversial since its enforcement with a considerable critical literature questioning the punishment of Rjam, ambiguity about Zina-bil-Jabr, traditional criminal procedure and definition and identification of Hudood crimes. The report said that there are three schools of thought about the ordinance. There were those who wanted to retain the status quo, those who wanted it be repealed and those who welcomed amendments. Those who favoured status quo argued that Hudood laws were divine and only westernised elements of Pakistani society were seeking its repeal. Others argued that Hudood laws were not divine and were framed by jurists.